Potential pro caliber players in APA league

[APA Operator]

Well, it uses the term 'applied score' or some form or that term several times throughout the explanation of the system. It shows a 10 point scale of each skill level ranking (2 - 7) and discusses win percentages and innings played. I'd be happy to send it to you for your opinion. But more to the point - what CAN you tell us? This is AZBilliard, as far as we know your given name is APA Operator, so you're reasonably annonymous here. I understand you can't say , "I'm Joe, and I'm the APA League Operator in Alabama and this is how it works..." But really, how's it work?

I missed this reply earlier, so I'll answer it now. Though I'm reasonably anonymous to most people here, there are actually a few who know who I am, people I know personally and trust to keep that information confidential. There are also APA League Operators who read this forum but don't participate. I'm pretty sure many of them also know who I am. So the answer to your first question is "I can tell you nothing about what's under the hood." I can't even confirm or deny any guesses, speculation, or information you may have come across somewhere else, because even a denial gives you SOME information.

To answer your second question, here's how it works: :banghead:

 

[KMRUNOUT]

I was told by the number one apa lo that if a 2 was over 50% winning they were automatically raised.

This situation is only for 2's. It is not the case for other skill levels.

KMRUNOUT

 

[KMRUNOUT]

Didn't work that way here. About 3 sessions ago, there was an SL2 that won the Top Gun award for that session, for having the best winning percentage out of the entire division. Somewhere around 88-90%. And didn't go up until several weeks into the following session.

Certainly raised a few eyebrows.

They could have had the top winning percentage for the session *without* winning 10 of their last 20. For example, they could lose 10 in a row. and then go 9-1 the next session. They would be 9 for their last 20 which is not 50%

KMRUNOUT

 

[APA Operator]

This situation is only for 2's. It is not the case for other skill levels.

KMRUNOUT

What if the 2 never makes an 8-Ball, ever? Should their skill level go up?

I once watched a 2 win a singles qualifier without ever shooting at the 8-Ball. Three matches, two 6's and a 7.

I had another 2 win five out of seven matches last session, while only making the 8-Ball once.

 

[TimKrazyMon]

We could go back and forth on this forever. One of us is mistaken. I've already stated that it's not me.

And I know it's not me. So we agree to disagree.

 

[APA Operator]

And I know it's not me. So we agree to disagree.

Agree to disagree doesn't really seem to be the right term for this impasse. It's not really a disagreement, since it can be proven which of us is mistaken. How about we simply agree that it won't be resolved here?

I can't believe I just said "I disagree that we disagree"...

 

[TimKrazyMon]

Agree to disagree doesn't really seem to be the right term for this impasse. It's not really a disagreement, since it can be proven which of us is mistaken. How about we simply agree that it won't be resolved here?

I can't believe I just said "I disagree that we disagree"...

Here's the old one, hasn't changed much from this.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca5...tion=image_495

Edit: guess the APA had it taken down again, lol.

found it: http://images.chillingeffects.org/notices/thompsoncoburn_redact.pdf

 

[lorider]

well after last fri night i can say the equalizer system does work.

we were playing 9 ball. my captain throws me 1st " a 5 " they throw a 1. i go wtf ? well as the game goes on she gets to where she needs 1 point. i decide to play a safe because i see a run out once i get ball in hand then i only need 2 points next rack.

well she was not only able to make contacy with the 5 but she pocketwd it. intentional or not all i can say is it was an amazing efren like shot. i just started laughing , gave her a hug and said great shooting. lost 14-6.

i sit down and think aint nobody gonna top this loss. well 2 matches later my captain throws a 2, they counter with a 5. well our 2 wins 17-3.

bad night for a couple of 5's on both teams. or a good night for a 1 and a 2.:smile:

i read somewhere that efren watched lower level players and that is how he came up with some of the shots , calling him the magician. maybe i oughta start watching these lower level players some.

 

[APA Operator]

Here's the old one, hasn't changed much from this.

http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca5...tion=image_495

Edit: guess the APA had it taken down again, lol.

found it: http://images.chillingeffects.org/notices/thompsoncoburn_redact.pdf

If this is the information upon which you base your claim, it should be clear to everyone which of us is mistaken.

 

[TimKrazyMon]

If this is the information upon which you base your claim, it should be clear to everyone which of us is mistaken.

I'm just saying that some of the same principles there are still in effect.

By all means, prove me wrong.

 

[Celophanewrap]

Agree to disagree doesn't really seem to be the right term for this impasse. It's not really a disagreement, since it can be proven which of us is mistaken. How about we simply agree that it won't be resolved here?

I can't believe I just said "I disagree that we disagree"...

How can it be proven?
Besides, if the Chilling Effects thing was correct, you couldn't say so, could you.

 

[APA Operator]

I'm just saying that some of the same principles there are still in effect.

By all means, prove me wrong.

In the information you posted (accurate or not is irrelevant if this is what has you convinced), a 6 with a 100% win rate could get 2.1 forever, right? Mathematically, the average of any subset of those numbers would be 2.1. 2.1, according to that information, is within the range of a 6, right?

Let me be clear here. My statement (it's possible for a player of any skill level to have a 100% win rate and never go up) is based on knowledge of the math behind the Equalizer formula. The example I just used is based on what you posted, which may or may not have principles in common with the Equalizer formula. Therefore, it does not prove you wrong, nor does it prove me right.

I stick by my previous reply - the impasse will not be resolved here (at least not by me). This is my final reply to you on this topic.

 

[APA Operator]

How can it be proven?
Besides, if the Chilling Effects thing was correct, you couldn't say so, could you.

I could prove it by providing the information my franchise agreement says I may not provide. Trust me, this whole sub-thread has not been about each of us believing we are correct. Both of us have known that from the beginning.

 

[cookie man]

I guess you'll have to decide who you choose to believe, me or the number one apa lo (whoever that is, I don't have a clue who is ranking them). Just remember though, I put my statement on the internet and you can't put something on the internet unless it's true. :rotflmao1:

I will believe the number one operator, thanks. Its not by ranking though, thats your clue.

 

[cookie man]

What if the 2 never makes an 8-Ball, ever? Should their skill level go up?

I once watched a 2 win a singles qualifier without ever shooting at the 8-Ball. Three matches, two 6's and a 7.

I had another 2 win five out of seven matches last session, while only making the 8-Ball once.

The computer doesn't know that, only sees wins and losses.

 

[lorider]

The computer doesn't know that, only sees wins and losses.

i got the number one lo. :wink:

btw i got wind that apa does use a decimal point in their system. example 4.4 you are a 4, 4.6 you are a 5.

but then i could be wrong, after all their handicap system is a secret.:wink:

 

[lorider]

The computer doesn't know that, only sees wins and losses.

that should be a clue to you then that handicaps are not just determined by a computor. a computor only digests what information is fed into it.

 

[Celophanewrap]

I could prove it by providing the information my franchise agreement says I may not provide. Trust me, this whole sub-thread has not been about each of us believing we are correct. Both of us have known that from the beginning.

I'm not trying to argue with you, I had gone round with the APA about this whole thing for years prior until I finally learned that without a modest amount of alcohol and the correct LO, this argument was an exercise in futility. That being said, your post indicates to me that this, your claims, can't be proven. But as I said, even if the Chilling Effects thig is correct, you couldn't say it was. Scott Lee should feel free to chime in any time.

 

[cookie man]

i got the number one lo. :wink:

btw i got wind that apa does use a decimal point in their system. example 4.4 you are a 4, 4.6 you are a 5.

but then i could be wrong, after all their handicap system is a secret.:wink:

It does use decimals and anyone going to vegas for singles knows this. The rankings are such that the highest rated player plays the second highest rated player in the first match. This continues down the bracket and IMO makes the equalizer system not quite the system it claims to be. After all if "anyone can win" because of the equalizer system then why isn't a blind draw done?

 

[cookie man]

that should be a clue to you then that handicaps are not just determined by a computor. a computor only digests what information is fed into it.

League operators have the ability to over-ride the computer and make players whatever ranking they think they should be.